Re: Approved of

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2009-03-27 21:18:58 +0100, "CDB" said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2009-03-27 15:21:21 +0100, "CDB" said:
James Silverton wrote:
Athel wrote on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:47:26 +0100:
[>> Jens Brix Christiansen wrote:]
Don Phillipson skrev:

"Approved of" would be a solecism.

I think Fowler would have approved of "approved of"?

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? In my experience
people attribute all kinds of opinions to Fowler without
checking what he actually wrote.

There does not seem to be heading for "approve" in the second
edition. Perhaps, it's like the old suspicion that a lot of
quoted statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.

Sheest, all he "asserted" (with a question mark?) was that he
*thought* Fowler *would have* approved.

OK, perhaps "assertion" was too strong, but that's trivial. To be
useful a speculation needs to be based on some sort of evidence,
but none has been offered, either in the original post or in the
follow-up. Can anyone point me to a statement by Fowler that might
suggest that he would have approved of "approved of"?

Here is the text in question: "He wore a tweed suit with a
waistcoat and watch chain, and chestnut-brown brogues that
Colonel blunden would have approved."

Maybe Jens's "approved of" is also too strong. I haven't opened
Fowler for many years, but I, too, think he would have *approved*
the wording. In what way is "...brogues that Colonel Blunden
would have approved of" different from "a usage that Fowler would
have approved of" or "a song that I am fond of" or "even the
messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in"? Granted, the last
one is non-restrictive.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I don't approve of
"approved of", but nothing that I wrote is open to that
interpretation. As it happens I see nothing wrong with "approved
of", so it's wasted effort to try to convince me that it's OK. What
I disapprove of is trying to give extra weight to one's opinion
(even if it is, as in this case, an opinion that I share) by
claiming on the basis of no evidence whatever that it's an opinion
that some authority would have shared. My original query wasn't
intended to be aggressive (a lot less aggressive than your
contributions have been), but simply to enquire the basis for
thinking that Fowler might have held what seemed to me a perfectly
reasonable opinion.

I apologise for my part in the aggression, which may have ramped up
beyond the small degree I intended. It seemed to me that two of you
were ganging up on Jens, who is one of the recent Danish invaders I
think it would be a good idea to allow to settle here. Was it the
quotes around "asserted" that seemed especially agressive? I assure
you, those were not of the scary kind.

I saw Jens's remark as an obiter thingy, making use of the assumption
that Fowler would approve of any correct usage, not as an appeal to
authority -- I suppose because I don't do those often, except to
dictionaries on questions of RL use and for examples. In other cases,
I prefer to appeal to "etymology" (squoting) or first principles or
parallel examples, as I did above. If Fowler disagrees with me, too
bad for him.

Maybe it was the "sheest"? I just threw that in for the obaue of it.
Peace be upon you.


.

Loading